This essay presents a longitudinal analysis of Clinton's framing of welfare and poverty from 1992 to 1996. Focusing on how Clinton strategically framed the potential impacts of "ending welfare," the analysis points toward three primary interpretations of Clinton's actions: institutional weakness, political opportunism, and his belief that the bill would transform the nation's "anti-welfare culture" from one hostile to welfare recipients into one amenable to helping the working poor. The essay focuses on this third interpretation, concluding that although there is significant support that such a transformation has occurred in some ways, overall it remains much more potential than reality.